"It is fundamentally illegitimate and flawed to consider any animal to be patentable subject matter," said AAVS President Sue Leary, "and defined as a machine, an article of manufacture, or an inventor's composition of matter. The horrible treatment of these patented dogs is a disgraceful illustration of the convergence of bad science and bad policy."
Specifically, numbers 1 through 4 of the patent's claims cover "a canine model [of fungal lung infection]," and the remaining claims pertain to the various methods used to induce a fatal lung infection in the dogs. The patent also indicated applying the methods to pigs, sheep, monkeys, or chimpanzees and, like many other patents on animals, now appears to be exclusively licensed to a private company.
"Dogs clearly are not patentable machines or articles of manufacture," says Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of ICTA. "This decision, hopefully, is a first step in our government recognizing this and rescinding patents on animals."
The AAVS/PatentWatch challenge represented the first time public interest organizations had requested the reexamination of a patent on an animal. New rules under which this reexamination was granted will permit AAVS and PatentWatch to appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Since the Patent and Trademark Office fi
Contact: Crystal Miller-Spiegel
American Anti-Vivisection Society